Should we remove randomness from D&D?

[Torm]

Some of you may think I'm crazy - and you won't be far from wrong - but Sunday before last a character that I have played up from 1st level up to 15th, and that I liked a LOT, Imploded on a Save-or-Die Fort save roll. AND I ENJOYED IT. And I did not let him get resurrected - it wouldn't have made sense for his character to want to be resurrected.

One of the things I enjoy about the game is that, when it is well run, the things that happen actually have lasting effects on the characters - and you know that death could be right around the corner. "Heroes" who know that the rules are bent in their favor aren't heroes. And the episodic reset-at-end just gets tiresome.

And when I say "when it is well run", I don't just mean by the DM - far from it. Too much ROLLplaying, and not enough ROLEplaying. I'm not going to get into Edition Wars with this - there are things about all of the Editions that I hold dear - but I think that 3rd Edition has aspects that encourage a more video-game style play. And no one wants to have to insert coin.....

 

[megamania]

Randomness is important to the game.

There are no guarentees and that is what gives the game IMPACT.

A bad roll OR a very good roll all make memorable impacts on the game. We allabout twice a year go all nostalgic and recount our greatest days.

"Do you remeber when Bill Hay rolled six one's in arow- and Lived!"

Or "I can't believe Clinton rolled 6 out of 7 rolls as a natural 20. The odd number being to varify a crit which was successful."



Randomness is what makes the game memorable and fun.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yes, we should remove randomness. It's not fun when you don't know the outcome ahead of time. And we should remove choice as well -- nothing spoils a good plan like the players deciding to do something different than the DM has planned.

The best campaigns are where the DM tells a good story, and the players sit, eat popcorn, and listen to it play out, without any confusion caused by player choice or silly random outcomes.

 

[Animus]

Yes, we should remove randomness. It's not fun when you don't know the outcome ahead of time. And we should remove choice as well -- nothing spoils a good plan like the players deciding to do something different than the DM has planned.

The best campaigns are where the DM tells a good story, and the players sit, eat popcorn, and listen to it play out, without any confusion caused by player choice or silly random outcomes.

In your opinion. It seems to me like that would be just as good as going out to the movies. There are some movies that I love, but I wouldn't trade the uncertainty factor of playing an RPG for Lord of the Rings any day, and I love LOTR. I've DMed for years, and some of the best sessions I've ever had were when the players took the game in a different direction. It's what makes it fun for me.

Silly random outcomes? I agree, get rid of those. Save-or-die, and the other stuff mentioned up thread. But I need some randomness. YMMV, of course, and hence the discussion of this topic.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Animus ... better get your sarcasm meter recalibrated.

 

[Torm]

Animus ... better get your sarcasm meter recalibrated.

And he's not the only one I've seen in this thread. "A Modest Proposal" should REALLY REALLY REALLY be required school reading if it isn't already.

 

[BOZ]

amazing how many folks in this thread didn't detect der_kluge's sarcasm. as for me, i'm perfectly fine with randomness in the game - makes it more realistic when the hero doesn't always succeed, or *gasp* dies while doing something dangerous.

now, if they had save-or-die rolls in the game for choking on a chicken bone when you eat, or having an aneurysm while going to the bathroom, yeah, that would suck.

but for doing something dangerous? hell yeah there should be save-or-die rolls! not with every encounter, but definitely with some of them. that feeling of suspense when you have to make the roll is as gut-wrenching as the feeling of making that save is relieving. of course, you fail that save, your guy dies... but them's the breaks!

 

[Odhanan]

qft.

if i can't roll my dice i won't be playing D&D

Agreed.

 

[Remathilis]

The consolation prize or "roll again" factor?

Well, in a perfect world, both. rycanada said it best. If the feeling is "Man, we did everything we could and the dice didn't pan out" than there is still fun to be had. However, hinging everything on a single die roll (or a series of exceptionally high ones) removes the planning out and settles ONLY for the random element.

Consider Disintegrate. Up till 3.5, Disintegrate was a save or die spell. In 3.0, it was ranged touch, fort save or poof. Now, a character with a lot of hp, a descent touch AC, SR, or a great fort can survive the spell. This makes the spell more fun; a raging barbarian, a monk, or a githzerai can all avoid it or survive it. Compare to (say) Finger of Death: Fort save or death. You've now hinged on one die roll (two, SR). Only High fort PCs have a chance, one chance, to survive.

 

[Animus]

Animus ... better get your sarcasm meter recalibrated.

EDIT: You meant you. My bad. My sarcasm meter is eternally broken . Vive four nat 1s on 7 d20 rolls!